Howland v. Wallace

Decided December 15, 1886

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1886-12-15

Tried before the Hon, H. A. Shabpe. This was an action by the appellee, William H. Wallace, against the appellant, S. D. Howland, doing business under tbe name of the “Birmingham Transfer Company,” for damages for failure to deliver a trunk and contents, alleged to have been received by appellant as a common carrier for delivery to tbe South & North Alabama Bailroad Company at Birmingham, Alabama. Tbe complaint was according to Eorm 13, Code of 1876, p. 703.

Relies on Burns v. Campbell · Petty v. Dill · Trammell v. Hudmon & Brother

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1886-12-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently May 1971

8 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

STONE, C. J.

¶1— The complaint in this case is an exact copy of the form given in the Code for a suit against a common carrier, for non-delivery of goods, and is sufficient. The demurrer to it was properly overruled. — Form 13, Code of 1876, 703. • A

¶2The case was tried on the single defense of the general issue. That plea put in issue the material allegations of the complaint, and it did no more. Any defense, special in its nature, or reaching beyond such mere denial, the statute requires to be specially pleaded. — Code of 1876, § 2988; Petty v. Dill, 53 Ala. 641; Trammell v. Hudmon, 56 Ala. 235 ; Burns v. Campb ll, 71 Ala. 271, 294.

¶3Infancy of plaintiff is not a defense in bar of the action. It must be pleaded in abatement. — 1 Chit. PI. 464, and note; 2 ib. 14 and note, and 406. And under our liberal system of amendments, if this defense had been properly interposed, an amendment by introducing a next friend would have been allowable.

¶4Affirmed.